I remember having the debate in school (I forget which level) about how no true altruism exists, because the giver is rewarded with personal gratification, so it's not truly selfish. But, I know about this argument, and so don't feel particularly gratified when I'm altruistic.
But does that then make it altruism again?
---
"To truly live, one must first be born." ~ Evan [aX]
Paper Mario Social: The Safe Haven of GameFAQs. (Board 2000083)
Think of this though... doesn't the very fact that helping people personally gratifies you, mean that you have an altruistic spirit? Couldn't you very well have been a person who was not personally excited by the thought of helping others? And wouldn't that be the true non-altruist?
I basically agree with Alex. Besides that, there's my usual argument that we should judge actions based on justification rather than motivation. If I do something which clearly benefits humanity, but I have ulterior motives, who cares about the ulterior motives?
---
"I'm sure everyone on this list will be glad to know I don't plan to reproduce myself." -Richard Stallman
Meh, I never cared much for that argument. It's completely insubstantial.
If I call you at night and say that I need a ride home because my car broke down, and you come get me, your motives were "selfish because you wanted to feel good/maintain a good friendship" and if you didn't get me it's because your motives were "selfish because you wanted more sleep."
Wow. What a fascinating argument. I may as well argue that everything we do is to bring sorrow to ourselves. If you don't come to get me, it's because you want to damage your friendships and feel isolation. If you do come to get me, it's so that you can be bitter and angry and lose sleep.
Lots of arguments seem to make sense, in our heads. But they don't always resonate within us even if we believe they might be true. I am a fan of Socrates' "psychic harmony," that if we have two beliefs that are not harmonious, one of them must be wrong, and contributes to our foolishness. If you believe in a such thing as good people, and yet you believe that people act out of selfishness (supposing that doesn't mesh with your definition of "good") then there's a problem.
---
SIGNATURE
I may as well argue that everything we do is to bring sorrow to ourselves. If you don't come to get me, it's because you want to damage your friendships and feel isolation. If you do come to get me, it's so that you can be bitter and angry and lose sleep.
Sometimes I worry that psychoanalysts actually believe this.
---
"I'm sure everyone on this list will be glad to know I don't plan to reproduce myself." -Richard Stallman
Heh. To be fair, it's harder to argue that case than it would be the other case. But it's just another example of "neener neener" philosophy as I call it.
---
SIGNATURE
I used that one for a sketch entitled "Great Moments in Freshman Philosophy," and there was a punchline, but I forget what it was.
I'm with Mark, though I'll add Plato's view (I believe articulated in the Republic) that there are three kinds of good action: (1) actions that are pleasant, but not virtuous, (2) actions that are virtuous, but not pleasant, and (3) actions that are both pleasant and virtuous. I've seen them likened to, respectively, eating a piece of cake, eating your vegetables, and eating a nice steak (or so I'm told).
Oh and Justice is the third thing but that's not important right now.
In this framework, we needn't separate virtuous behavior from reward. Indeed, the very best kind of virtuous behavior is the kind that offers a reward, 'cause we're into that. 'Cause that's what the Form of Justice wants us to do.
---
Willis, it seems like every other time you post, I need to look up a word that's in the OED or Urban Dictionary but not both.
-Mimir
You know, I might be wrong in applying the phrase "psychic harmony" to that concept. Because I haven't read Republic. I just remember he was going on in, perhaps, Phaedo, about recognizing dissonance in one's own beliefs. Perhaps around the same time they're talking about correct opinion.
It could be a completely unrelated speech I'm thinking of, but when I was trying to find out what he said exactly, all I got was that phrase, psychic harmony.
---
SIGNATURE
James: I'm interested what you think about all this.
I mean, I do like Mark's argument about how the same thing could be turned to bringing sorrow, but I don't think anyone really answered the original point, in that, assuming you accept the flawed argument that we've all argued against, does someone committing a virtuous act that doesn't gratify them then become true altruism?
I suppose there's Will's point about there being no need to separate virtuous behavior from reward, which makes sense.
But what does it mean to help others when that doesn't make you happy yourself? What does that say about the person who does it? I suppose the question is, what is their motivation?
---
"To truly live, one must first be born." ~ Evan [aX]
Paper Mario Social: The Safe Haven of GameFAQs. (Board 2000083)
Well, to whom does that matter? If Hitler had absolutely hated the Jews and yet he did the exact opposite of history and he promoted them and advocated for them... we definitely would have never known or cared how he felt. I think in that case he might be accountable to God, but why should we humans hold him accountable?
It may help alleviate the confusion to distinguish between wanting and liking, that is, between the motivation for doing something and the experience of doing it. How much we enjoy any given act of altruism can certainly vary. Motivation to do something we're doing, on the other hand, is necessarily present, or else we wouldn't be doing it; the only room for variability is how prosocial our motivation is. The question here seems to be about motivation, not experience, so how good doing the altruistic act makes you feel is technically irrelevant. The question is whether expectations of good feelings are part of your motivation for some altruistic act. Is it fair to call someone whose motives are at least partly hedonistic, compared to someone who expects or desires no pleasure at all, less altruistic? I guess so.
---
"I'm sure everyone on this list will be glad to know I don't plan to reproduce myself." -Richard Stallman